Fire Gulutzan/Give him Coach of the year All Purpose Thread

[kyuss275]

Originally Posted by kukkudo

Only coaches I see available after this season.

John Tortorella Miss Playoffs
Lindy Ruff If Dallas misses or gets bounced out first two rounds
Darryl Sutter If they miss the playoffs
Michel Therrien Miss playoffs
Peter Laviolette Miss Playoffs
Alain Vigneault Miss Playoffs
Willie Desjardins Miss Playoffs
Paul Maurice Miss Playoffs
Ken Hitchcock Now I know he says he's retiring but you never know!

If Sutter becomes available at any time durring this season or the summer the flames chould pounce on him . I would love a coach for this young team that players would drive through a brick wall for. That said if he is let go, i see him retireing to his ranch.

Also i know its on a website , but i have a very hard time believing GG was only signed for 1 year.

[MarkGio]

Originally Posted by kukkudo

Only coaches I see available after this season.

John Tortorella Miss Playoffs
Lindy Ruff If Dallas misses or gets bounced out first two rounds
Darryl Sutter If they miss the playoffs
Michel Therrien Miss playoffs
Peter Laviolette Miss Playoffs
Alain Vigneault Miss Playoffs
Willie Desjardins Miss Playoffs
Paul Maurice Miss Playoffs
Ken Hitchcock Now I know he says he's retiring but you never know!

I would love Vigneault or Laviolette, but I can't see them being available

[GreenLantern2814]

Originally Posted by MarkGio

I would love Vigneault or Laviolette, but I can't see them being available

We should have hired Laviolette instead of Brent way back in the day. The only coach available who'd won a Stanley Cup post Lockout, and we hire the GM's brother.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by GreenLantern2814

If there wasn't a candidate available the Flames felt they could make a multi year commitment to, they shouldn't have fired Bob Hartley.

This is crazy. If they thought Bob Hartley wasn't the right coach, they should have fired Bob hired regardless. Clearly that's what happened.

This "why did they only give GG one year" narrative is bizarre. Can anyone imagine if instead of 1, people just discovered he had been signed for 3? I can see it now: "3 years? Why commit to an unproven coach that long!"

His contract length is ideal, can't call (the length) anything but a smart move on Treliving's part.

[Flash Walken]

If Treliving had been REALLY smart he would've gone month to month on the new coach contract.

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

The fact that the team is struggling so far under Gulutzan does not retroactively make Hartley a better coach.

Until Gulutzan wins a Cup or Jack Adams, it's no contest who the better coach is. Maybe he will prove he is better one day, but he hasn't yet.

You can argue that Hartley isn't the right coach for this team, but there is no way he isn't proven to be a better coach than Gultzan in general, at least at the NHL level.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

Until Gulutzan wins a Cup or Jack Adams, it's no contest who the better coach is. Maybe he will prove he is better one day, but he hasn't yet.

You can argue that Hartley isn't the right coach for this team, but there is no way he isn't proven to be a better coach than Gultzan in general, at least at the NHL level.

Arguing he is better is entirely pointless and irrelevant.

Either he was the right coach or he wasn't. They determined he wasn't.

Whether or not Gulutzan is the right coach is a completely separate argument.

[nik-]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

If Treliving had been REALLY smart he would've gone month to month on the new coach contract.

Pay as you go

[Racki]

In my opinion the one-year deal is a strong indicator that Gulutzan was not there guy. I have to believe that their first choice (Boudreau?) signed elsewhere and Treliving believed that Gulutzan was the best of the remaining candidates.

[GreenLantern2814]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

This is crazy. If they thought Bob Hartley wasn't the right coach, they should have fired Bob hired regardless. Clearly that's what happened.

This "why did they only give GG one year" narrative is bizarre. Can anyone imagine if instead of 1, people just discovered he had been signed for 3? I can see it now: "3 years? Why commit to an unproven coach that long!"

His contract length is ideal, can't call (the length) anything but a smart move on Treliving's part.

There are two other coaches in the league on one year deals. One is Hitchcock, one is Capuano. Capuano may be fired and Hitch is retiring.

There's no reason to hire a head coach on a one year deal.

[Rick M.]

Originally Posted by Racki

In my opinion the one-year deal is a strong indicator that Gulutzan was not there guy. I have to believe that their first choice (Boudreau?) signed elsewhere and Treliving believed that Gulutzan was the best of the remaining candidates.

I recall reading that Boudreau said the Flames didn't contact him.

[AltaGuy]

Vigneault would be awesome.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by Rick M.

I recall reading that Boudreau said the Flames didn't contact him.

Plus, there was a lengthy period of time between Harltey being fired and Boudreau signing with Minny - like weeks.

That, plus his claims that the Flames never contacted him, make the 'he was their guy' argument pretty silly.

[FlamesAddiction]

Personally, I think it was Mike Yeo they wanted.

And they never contacted Boudreau likely because they know he had other teams going after him that were better options. I doubt Boudreau was worried about landing another HC gig.

[jayswin]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

Personally, I think it was Mike Yeo they wanted.

And they never contacted Boudreau likely because they know he had other teams going after him that were better options. I doubt Boudreau was worried about landing another HC gig.

I thought the reasoning for us passing on him was that he was tough to play for like Hartley and that the general feeling around the NHL is that you don't go to two demanding, tough coaches in a row?

[Frank MetaMusil]

Originally Posted by taco.vidal

Gully is dud. I said it after 4 games and it has become painfully obvious he is a dud of a coach. Eakins 2.0. He is going to stunt the growth and development of the young players if he isnt let go.

Treliving believed it was more systems than bad goalies this season. Fine. Improvement can't be dragged out. I love the rebuild the rebuild comments.

[Kjesse]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

Arguing he is better is entirely pointless and irrelevant.

Either he was the right coach or he wasn't. They determined he wasn't.

Whether or not Gulutzan is the right coach is a completely separate argument.

But.... you thought it relevant enough to argue it.

Myself I'm spending my time more usefully trying to think up a childish nickname for GG.

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by jayswin

I thought the reasoning for us passing on him was that he was tough to play for like Hartley and that general feeling around the NHL is that you don't go to two demanding, tough coaches in a row?

I seem to recall the media reporting that we interviewed him though and I am sure they knew what kind of coach he was. He accepted the St.Louis offer on June 13th and the Flames hired Gulutzan on June 17th, so the timing seems make sense too. I believe he fits the possession-driven systems coach they were looking for too.

Just a guess of course.

[Wiggum_PI]

Originally Posted by Delgar

But.... you thought it relevant enough to argue it.

Myself I'm spending my time more usefully trying to think up a childish nickname for GG.

"Glue Gun" is the best nickname I've seen so far.

[taco.vidal]

Gully is so ####ty its plausible he is working for the Coil.